Nearly five years after actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s death, the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) closure report has come under renewed scrutiny from the late actor’s family.
Their counsel, Advocate Varun Singh, has alleged that the agency filed an “incomplete and inconclusive” report while withholding crucial supporting documents — effectively stalling any legal challenge to its findings.
The CBI had filed its closure report in March 2025, giving a clean chit to Rhea Chakraborty and other accused persons named in the FIR. The report stated that there was no evidence to suggest that Rajput had been confined, threatened, or subjected to any criminal act.
However, Advocate Singh told ANI that the agency’s submission remains deficient, as several critical annexures and relied-upon materials have not been shared — despite six court orders from the Patna court directing the CBI to furnish them.
“We do intend to move the court, but the major hurdle right now is that we have not been provided with the complete set of documents accompanying the closure report. Without access to the full report and annexures, it is impossible for us to file a protest petition,” Singh said.
He explained that under the law, a protest petition is an independent right of the complainant to challenge a closure report, and even the magistrate has the power to continue proceedings if inconsistencies appear.
“But for that, both the complainant and the magistrate must have access to the annexed documents. At present, neither can act because those records are missing, even though more than seven months have passed since the CBI filed its report,” he added.
Advocate Singh said the CBI’s own language in the report shows that the findings are not definitive.
“The report states that ‘the possibility of suicide cannot be ruled out.’ That means the conclusion is uncertain. If the agency could not conclusively determine whether it was suicide, abetment to suicide, or homicide, should the case be closed at all? It was the CBI’s duty to establish the truth conclusively,” he remarked.
He also questioned the handling of financial evidence, pointing out that money transfers in favour of the accused were acknowledged in the report but not properly investigated.
“Such transactions should have been examined for cheating, criminal breach of trust, or evidence of control over the victim. Any of these could have justified further investigation instead of premature closure,” Singh said.
The family’s counsel further raised concerns about the withholding of forensic and digital evidence, including data examined abroad.
“What is the report they received from America on digital evidence? Why is the CBI silent?” he asked, suggesting that key materials were omitted from the case file submitted to court.
He emphasised that the absence of documentary evidence, whether relied upon or not, has undermined the transparency of the investigation.
“Once access is granted to all the documents, we can establish that the closure report was not filed in a proper manner,” Singh said. (ANI)
Also Read: Bill Gates says ‘Jai Shri Krishna’ in ‘Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi’ promo